United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
General Technical Report NRS-121
Northern Research Station September 2013
Horizon Scanning for Environmental Foresight: A Review of Issues and ApproachesDavid N. Bengston
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/
Published by: For additional copies:
U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications DistributionNEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 Fax: 740-368-0152September 2013 Email: [email protected]
Manuscript received for publication 5 April 2013
Cover PhotoForest ranger Bryce Ledford uses binoculars at Yellowpin lookout in Sabine National Forest, Texas. Undated photo used with permission of the Forest History Society, Durham, NC.
AbstractNatural resource management organizations carry out a range of activities to examine possible future conditions and trends as part of their planning process, but the distinct approach of formal horizon scanning is often a missing component of strategic thinking and strategy development in these organizations. Horizon scanning is a process for finding and interpreting early indications of change in the external environment of an organization or field. Effective horizon scanning serves as an early warning system to identify potential opportunities and threats, enable decisionmakers to plan accordingly and take timely action, and foster a culture of foresight throughout an organization. This paper reviews and discusses the key items needed to create an effective horizon scanning system: conceptual frameworks, organizational approaches, design principles, techniques to improve effectiveness, and techniques for analyzing and interpreting scanning results.
The AuthorDAVID N. BENGSTON is a research social scientist with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, [email protected].
1
INTRODUCTION
Natural resource managers and policy makers are continually working toward a desired future within the context of rapid and turbulent change in the external environment in which they operate. To be effective in a complex and changing world, decisionmakers must look ahead to anticipate emerging trends, issues, opportunities, and threats. They need to develop and apply strategic foresight, i.e., “the ability to create and maintain a high-quality, coherent and functional forward view and to use the insights arising in organisationally useful ways; for example: to detect adverse conditions, guide policy, shape strategy” (Slaughter 1999b: 287). Natural resource management agencies work to gain strategic foresight by many means. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) carries out the Resources Planning Act Assessment every 10 years to provide a detailed look at current conditions and trends for the Nation’s renewable forest resources. National forest planners are required by the 2012 USFS Planning Rule to “rapidly evaluate existing information about relevant ecological, economic, and social conditions, trends and sustainability,” and to “consider and evaluate existing and possible future conditions and trends of the plan area” (USFS 2012: 21262).
These and many other existing activities for developing foresight are essential. But they may not be sufficient to meet the need for high-level strategic foresight in the present era of increasingly rapid, complex, and surprising change. Horizon scanning is one approach to help policy makers develop and maintain the broad and externally focused forward view they need. Also known as environmental scanning, external scanning, and strategic scanning, horizon scanning may be defined as “the acquisition and use of information about events, trends and relationships in an organization’s external environment, the knowledge of which would assist management in planning the organization’s future course of action” (Choo 2002: 84). Characteristics of horizon scanning that distinguish it from the typical activities to survey future conditions and trends carried out by forest planners include its emphasis on “weak signals” (early indicators of potential change), comprehensive scanning of all sectors, an emphasis on external trends
and developments, and the inclusion of possible wild cards (low-probability, high-impact events). Horizon scanning encompasses a wide range of techniques and organizational approaches for identifying and interpreting the potential implications of weak signals of change. Ideally, horizon scanning serves as an early warning system to identify potential threats and opportunities. The goals are to find nascent indications of important future developments so decisionmakers can plan accordingly and take timely action, and more broadly to foster a culture of foresight in the organization.
Techniques for systematically gathering and analyzing information about emerging external issues and trends were originally devised by military intelligence officers to gain insights into new developments in enemy countries (Cornish 2004). Scanning has long been standard practice in the military, the intelligence community, and the business world and is a core method in futures research. In recent years, horizon scanning has been used in a growing number of fields in the public sector, such as human health (Douw and Vondeling 2006) and education (Munck and McConnell 2009). But the use of formal horizon scanning in natural resources and the environment has been limited. Rare examples include scanning exercises related to biodiversity (Sutherland et al. 2008) and global conservation issues (Sutherland et al. 2010), and the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute’s futures scanning on environmental issues (U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, n.d.). The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology recommended that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) create an ongoing, institutionalized scanning system (U.S. EPA 2002), but this recommendation has not been implemented. Though widely used in many fields, horizon scanning remains an underused tool for natural resource planning and decisionmaking (Sutherland and Woodroof 2009).
Although formal horizon scanning is uncommon in environmental and natural resource management organizations, all decisionmakers scan the external environment. Some scan passively and informally, keeping their antennae up and waiting to receive outside signals of change that may be significant. Others scan actively and formally. The research literature on scanning
2
in business clearly shows the value of active and formal scanning (Choo 2002). This paper introduces this topic to natural resource planners, managers, and policy makers, and reviews key considerations needed to create an effective horizon scanning system. The following section reviews two conceptual models of horizon scanning systems to indicate the basic elements and structure. This review is followed by discussions of the organizational approaches and design principles that need to be considered in different organizational contexts. Techniques to improve the effectiveness of scanning and to analyze and interpret scanning results are described in subsequent sections.
CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF HORIZON SCANNING SYSTEMS
Many different horizon scanning systems have been developed by futurists, business scholars, and others. These systems encompass a wide range of approaches and elements. Most include at least three main components: scanning, analysis, and interaction with decisionmakers. In this section, I describe the broad outlines of two typical horizon scanning systems, one developed by
futurists Gordon and Glenn (2009) and the other by business researchers Day and Schoemaker (2006).
Figure 1 depicts a generic horizon scanning system proposed by the Millennium Project, an independent global futures research think tank (Gordon and Glenn 2009). The scanning component usually consists of a team effort to examine diverse information sources to identify potential signals of change and emerging trends, referred to as scanning hits. Examples of scanning hits could include a breakthrough in nanotechnology reported in the research literature, a surge in permit applications for sand mining for hydraulic fracturing in a region, or a decline in participation in outdoor recreation activities among youth. A few common information sources are shown at the top of Figure 1, but a large number of diverse sources should be examined.
The analysis and synthesis component involves identifying potential consequences of individual scanning hits, as well as synthesizing multiple trends or weak signals of change and looking at possible big-picture implications. A variety of techniques may be used to
1
Figure 1.—Conceptual model of a horizon scanning system. (Source: Gordon and Glenn 2009).
3
facilitate analysis and synthesis of scanning hits (see the section below on techniques for analyzing, synthesizing, and interpreting). Information about raw scanning hits and the results of analysis and synthesis are entered into an interactive database or collective intelligence system that can be searched for keywords to identify patterns and generate reports on topics of interest. This database is made accessible to managers and policy makers in several ways, such as summary pages, emails of latest scanning hits, and the capability to search the database. The idea is to give decisionmakers a window into the system. Finally, interaction with and feedback from management is a key element for scanning systems, so that (1) the system “learns” how to produce information that is most relevant to decisionmakers and (2) decisionmakers understand the implications of unfamiliar trends and developments.
To facilitate the various stages in Gordon and Glenn’s (2009) scanning system, they developed a template to systematically collect information about each scanning hit (i.e., an emerging trend or development of interest). The template includes the following fields for each item: (1) category or domain it falls in (e.g., technological, economic, environmental, or social), (2) leading indicator (i.e., what would indicate change in this scanning hit?), (3) source of the information and how to access it, (4) other comments about the scanning hit, (5) significance, importance, or possible consequences of the item, (6) current status, (7) actors involved in or affecting the item, and (8) date entered and name of scanner entering the item. Bishop (2009) presents a more detailed template developed by futurist Wayne Pethrick that includes subjective ratings of the impact, plausibility, novelty, and timeliness of each scanning hit.
A more detailed horizon scanning process from the business world is summarized in Figure 2 (Day and Schoemaker 2006). This model is grounded in organizational learning theory and consists of five stages: scoping, scanning, interpreting, probing/acting, and feedback/adjusting. Scoping is the process of defining how broadly an organization should scan. If the scope is too narrow, the organization risks being broadsided by external surprises; if the scope is too broad, there is a risk of being overwhelmed by unimportant signals. Day and Schoemaker (2006: 32-47) present a set of guiding questions to strike the right balance in scoping. In general, greater uncertainty in an organization’s environment requires a broader scope. Given an appropriate scope, scanning is the process of searching for emerging trends and issues, and should include a balance of exploratory scanning (searching broadly in unfamiliar areas to provide a big-picture view) and “exploitation” scanning (searching in greater depth within well-defined or familiar domains). Interpreting involves developing hypotheses about the meaning of signals identified by scanning. Day and Schoemaker note that interpreting is strongly affected by incomplete and narrow frames of thinking. Confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs (Nickerson 1998)—also affects our ability to accurately interpret the meaning of scanning hits. Therefore, a shift or expansion of our individual or organizational mental models may be required to appreciate potential threats or opportunities (Barker 1992).
Probing and acting is about responding to the weak signals and their anticipated implications. There are three main approaches to responding: watch and wait (a passive approach that may be appropriate when stakes
2
Figure 2.—Conceptual model of horizon scanning as a learning process. (Source: Day and Schoemaker 2006: 192).
4
are low or there is high uncertainty), probe and learn (a more proactive response to learn more when the cost of inaction is higher), or believe and lead (a strong commitment to respond when a convergence of signals indicates that a threat is imminent or an opportunity is very promising). Finally, feedback and adjusting is the process of obtaining feedback on actions related to weak signals and making appropriate adjustments to the organization’s understanding of its environment, including its mental models.
Other models of horizon scanning have been proposed, but they are fundamentally variations on the basic models. For example, futurists Slaughter (1999a), Voros (2001), and Hines (2003) focus on the importance of scanning a broad range of sources and draw on the work of integral philosopher Ken Wilber to achieve this breadth. The essence of this “integral futures” approach is a four-quadrant matrix that identifies four spheres of social life that should be incorporated in scanning to ensure the inclusion of both objective phenomena that are measurable (e.g., from the scientific and social realms) and subjective phenomena that must be interpreted (e.g., from the realms of art and morality).
ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES
Horizon scanning systems have been designed for many different types of organizations to accomplish an array of purposes and have used diverse approaches. They range from systems that provide a one-time or periodic scan in large corporations based mainly on the insights of top leaders, to continuous scanning processes that are tailored for public sector agencies and that use a participatory approach. Some scanning systems use a small team of full-time scanners, whereas others enlist many part-time scanners throughout an organization. Scanning may be focused on a specific set of priority issues, or it may involve broad scoping of the entire external environment. The diversity of approaches suggests that scanning systems should be designed to fit the context and information needs of decisionmakers in a particular organization. Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996) show that organizations with effective scanning systems align their approach with their specific organizational context. This section briefly describes the three main
organizational approaches for horizon scanning activities: outsourcing to consultants, an in-house dedicated scanning team, and an in-house core team working with a network of part-time scanners throughout the organization.
Outsourcing to Consultants
Outsourcing scanning activities to consultants is a common approach and a large number of firms offer scanning services customized to clients’ information needs. Organizations may purchase scanning services and analyses, or simply subscribe to scanning newsletters that are more or less tailored to their needs (Lesca and Caron-Fasan 2008). Using the expertise of consultants may be a quick and effective way to initiate scanning, and outside partners may provide innovative perspectives that can be difficult to obtain from internal efforts. But Day and Schoemaker (2005) note that organizations need to work hard to ensure that the scanning insights of outside consultants are relevant and incorporated into strategic planning and decisionmaking. A small in-house team typically works with the consultants to help ensure relevance, interpret scanning hits, and communicate with executives. Choudhury and Sampler (1997) suggest that scanning should be outsourced only when information specificity for the area being scanned is low, i.e., information can be acquired by individuals without specific knowledge of the area.
Dedicated In-house Team
A second approach is to form a dedicated in-house scanning team whose sole job is to search for, analyze, and communicate information about trends in the external environment. Dedicated scanning teams are widely used in corporations of all sizes (Brown 2007, Choo 2002). Such teams are sometimes referred to as a “crow’s nest” because they function like the lookout in a ship, signaling information about objects on the horizon—both opportunities and potential threats—to the captain and crew. The size of these teams varies considerably depending on the size of the organization, from two or three members up to dozens. To be effective, full-time scanning teams must work to avoid the trap of becoming isolated from decisionmakers (Day and Schoemaker 2005). A potential drawback of this
5
organizational approach—as well as outsourcing—is that limiting scanning activities and responsibilities to a select group can make it more challenging to foster a culture of foresight throughout an organization.
Core Team with Network
The third main approach to organizing horizon scanning activities is more broadly participatory: a small in-house scanning team (or an individual) working with a much larger network of part-time scanners. Choo (1999), Day and Schoemaker (2005), and others have made the case that scanning is more effective and produces richer insights for decisionmaking when it is a widely distributed activity with many people participating. A participatory approach is based on the assumption that everyone in an organization, not just a designated scanning team or top leaders, may have valid and important insights about the changing external environment, and a scanning system should therefore facilitate gathering insights from as many people with as diverse backgrounds as possible. The core scanning unit may consist of a single half-time coordinator or a team of several members, and is supported by a network of people throughout the organization who spend a small part of their time engaged in scanning (Conference Board of Canada 2008). The scanning network may consist of volunteers or purposely selected individuals formally assigned to the duty. In public sector agencies, outside stakeholders representing diverse perspectives could be recruited and trained to actively contribute to scanning.
Other Approaches
There are many variations on these three approaches to structure scanning activities, and they may be combined in various ways: Outside consultants often design and set up in-house scanning systems, or a consultant may train an internal scanning team. Additional approaches to organize periodic or one-time scanning efforts typically involve group processes relying on external experts or internal leaders. For example, the Quick Environmental Scanning Technique (QUEST) was developed for use in relatively large organizations (Nanus 1982). An underlying assumption is that members of the top management team have valid and insightful views of
the changing external environment but rarely articulate and share these views. The QUEST process provides a systematic framework to bring these views to light in order to aggregate, examine, test, and put them to use for strategic planning and decisionmaking. By tapping into top leaders’ collective knowledge, QUEST also engages these leaders in the scanning process and secures their “buy-in” of the results (Slaughter 1990).
The QUEST process involves four main phases. First is the preparation phase, which focuses on creation of an initial notebook containing information about major trends and relevant issues in the organization’s field and the external environment. The information is drawn from a variety of readily available sources such as trade association and government publications and recent articles speculating about the future of the field, and the notebook is distributed to a group of 10-15 top executives and managers from the organization. The second phase is a 1-day scanning workshop spent in carefully structured discussion of important issues that may affect the future of the organization. Scenario development is the third phase, in which the QUEST facilitator prepares a report analyzing all of the information generated in the preceding phase. The report also includes development of three to five scenarios describing possible future environments the organization may find itself in based on the major themes that emerged during the 1-day workshop. The report is distributed to participants 1 week before the final phase, a half-day strategic options identification workshop. Based on the report, participants identify and rank strategic options to deal with the changing organizational environment. Strategic planning teams are also formed to follow up on development of the high-priority strategies.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Regardless of which organizational approach is used, additional design issues must be addressed to structure scanning activities, including the degree of focus; continuous or periodic scanning; the time horizon for scanning hits; and the importance of having a diverse scanning team, information sources, and products. These design principles are discussed in the following subsections.
6
Focused or Broad Scanning
Day and Schoemaker (2006) emphasize that scanning activities should begin with scoping to determine how broadly to search. Horizon scanning sometimes focuses on a particular domain considered to be most important, such as emerging technologies (Douw and Vondeling 2006), competitive or competitor intelligence (Ghoshal and Westney 1991), or a particular issue or set of issues. But scanning that is too focused will fail to detect signals of change in other domains, raising the risk of being blindsided by unexpected developments (Harris 2002). The other end of the scoping spectrum is to make the scope of horizon scanning as comprehensive as possible, a full-circle sweep to detect signals of change anywhere in the external environment. Futurists generally take this comprehensive or high-level approach to scanning (e.g., Hines 2003, Slaughter 1999a) because they have found that changes in seemingly unrelated external areas can have unexpected and profound effects. For example, the automobile had a transformative effect on the use of public lands in the 20th century, including fostering the creation of the wilderness system as a way to preserve lands from widespread road building (Sutter 2002). The potential downside of comprehensive scanning is the risk of overwhelming decisionmakers with unimportant signals. Therefore, careful analysis, synthesis, and interpretation are essential if a broad approach is taken. A mixed strategy of both broad, high-level scanning and low-level scanning that homes in on specific areas and analyzes them in detail may be optimal (Choo 2002).
Several trend classification systems have been used to facilitate scanning broadly across every sector of the external environment. For example, a widely used classification system features six broad categories with the acronym DEGEST: demography, economy, government, environment, society/culture, and technology (Kotler and Keller 2008). Another commonly used acronym for sectors in the macroenvironment is STEEP: social, technological, economic, environmental, and political (Morrison 1992). Trend classifications such as these are useful starting points to ensure scanning a wide range of topics, but organizations often build on standard lists and develop their own set of categories important to their unique context and information
needs. For example, horizon scanning in corporations often includes scanning for trends related to customers, suppliers, and competition (Choo 2002). The public sector equivalent would be to include the full range of an agency’s stakeholders—e.g., how their attitudes, beliefs, values, demographic characteristics, and views of policy and management issues are changing and what these changes might imply—so the agency can be responsive to stakeholders’ needs in the future.
Continuous or Periodic Scanning
Many horizon scanning systems are designed to provide ongoing, continuously updated information about the changing external environment, bringing weak signals of change to the attention of decisionmakers as soon as they are spotted on the horizon. Some professional scanners and futurists believe a continuous approach is essential to avoid static scans that are unresponsive and quickly become outdated (Conference Board of Canada 2008). Other scanning efforts provide periodic assessments of major emerging trends and driving forces of change. Examples of public and nonprofit sector periodic scans are the United Way of America’s (1992) “What Lies Ahead” reports produced every 2 years from 1980 through 1992, the Millennium Project’s annual “State of the Future” report (Glenn et al. 2012), the United Nations Environment Programme’s biennial reports on emerging environmental issues (United Nations Environment Programme 2012), and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s quadrennial assessments of global trends (National Intelligence Council 2012). Which approach is more appropriate—continuous scanning of weak signals, periodic assessments of major trends, or some blend—depends on the purpose of the scanning system, users’ information needs, and the degree of turbulence in an organization’s external environment.
Time Horizon
Scanning systems sometimes incorporate multiple time horizons into the scanning framework to help planners and decisionmakers sort out and deal with a large number of trends and issues that may emerge or have an impact at different points in the future. For example, Brown (2007) describes three time horizons for different types of trends: Horizon 1 (“now”) includes trends and driving forces that
7
are having an impact on an organization today, horizon 2 (“next”) consists of emerging trends that are expected to have an impact in the near future, and horizon 3 (“new”) applies to trends and driving forces that may shape an organization’s environment in the longer term. The exact definitions of horizons 1, 2, and 3 are variable and will depend on the pace of internal and external change. In its quarterly horizon scans, the Centre for Environmental Risks and Futures (CERF) at Cranfield University sorts scanning hits into three time horizons: 1-3 years, 3-10 years, and 10+ years (CERF 2012).
Diverse Scanning Team
Including diverse perspectives on scanning teams is widely viewed as essential for success. Scanning team members are typically limited in their ability to scan effectively by their disciplinary backgrounds, frames of reference, and other personal factors. Specialists tend to see what they are trained to see, a phenomenon that Weiner and Brown (2005: 2) have called “educated incapacity.” This limitation poses a basic challenge for horizon scanning: how to best break out of the paradigms and ways of thinking that limit our perception of potentially significant trends and developments, especially in unfamiliar areas. To help overcome these blinders, scanning teams—whether made up of a few full-time scanners or many part-timers—need to be as heterogeneous as possible, with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences (Morrison and Wilson 1997). Page (2007) documents that complex problems are solved more effectively with diverse teams than by the best individual experts. To increase diversity and effectiveness, Day and Schoemaker (2005) suggest that scanning teams include an organization’s maverick employees – individuals who tend to reject conventional wisdom and think outside-the-box. The importance of diverse perspectives on scanning teams implies the need to include diverse stakeholders in public agency scanning efforts.
Diverse Information Sources
Scanning a wide range of information sources has also been shown to be critical for success. Choo (2002) recommends including both human and online (or textual) categories of information. Human sources
should include individuals who are making the future or have their finger on the pulse of change, such as scientists and researchers, futurists, innovative colleagues, consultants, government officials, reporters and other media representatives, artists, and community leaders. Identifying forward-looking individuals across many domains is a challenging but crucial task in developing a network of human sources. Hiltunen (2008) found that human sources were ranked the most useful across all domain areas in a survey in which 121 futurists were asked about the best sources for identifying weak signals of change. Online sources include the Web pages of organizations and individuals, electronic databases, blogs, podcasts, discussion groups, and email newsletters, as well as traditional textual information sources such as academic and scientific journals, popular science and other periodicals, books, newspapers, fringe or underground press, doctoral dissertations, and government and non-profit sector reports.
Regardless of whether information sources are human or online, Schwartz (1996) suggests scanning nontraditional sources and seeking out potential trends on the edges of society rather than the mainstream. Some professional scanners recommend including speculative fiction, poetry, film, music, and art to develop an awareness of deeper cultural currents and changes in society (Coote 2012). Schwartz’s (1996) chapter on “information hunting and gathering” is filled with tips for searching out innovative thinkers and sources of information about change, such as reading broadly outside your specialty and field, contacting the authors of challenging articles and books, cultivating relationships with people with whom you disagree but can talk cordially, and immersing yourself in unfamiliar and challenging environments and cultures through travel.
Diverse Products
Scanning may generate a variety of products, from continuously updated online databases to lengthy periodic reports. The timeframe for decisionmaking typically determines the most appropriate way of delivering scanning results. Regular electronic newsletters or concise periodic reports are viewed as useful in most planning and decisionmaking contexts according to
8
surveys of horizon scanning practitioners in business (Conference Board of Canada 2008) and in the public sector (Pflaum and Delmont 1987). Workshops with users to discuss and interpret findings are also widely employed. To increase the use, insights, and sense of ownership in scanning, an interactive online database is often a key product. Periodic strategic planning efforts that require knowledge of broad trends and driving forces of change may benefit most from scanning products in the form of annual or biennial comprehensive reports.
TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING SCANNING EFFECTIVENESS
This section reviews several techniques and resources that can increase the effectiveness or efficiency of horizon scanning: meta-scanning, lookout panels, Internet resources and tools, wide-angle vision, and techniques to explore potential wild cards (low-probability, high-impact events).
Meta-scanning
A widely practiced way to scan effectively—and simultaneously reduce labor-intensiveness and cost—is “meta-scanning” or “scanning the scanners.” The idea is to take advantage of the freely available work of professional scanners in the academic, public, private, and non-profit sectors. Most scanning output is proprietary or confidential, but a surprising amount is publicly available. Table 1 contains examples of meta-scanning sources, ranging from the U.S. Army to consulting futurists, and from daily or weekly email newsletters to scanning reports issued annually or every few years. Meta-scanning is particularly appropriate for identifying global and national trends and driving forces; original scanning will likely be needed to identify emerging regional issues and trends.
Lookout Panels
Panels of experts can be a valuable technique to provide supplemental or periodic in-depth scans of issues deemed to be important. Gordon and Glenn (2009) and the Environmental Futures Committee (1995) describe an example of a “lookout panel” on African futures designed by the Millennium Project. Lookout panels generally
involve identifying a diverse set of creative thinkers and querying them about (1) potential high-impact future developments that may affect the topic of interest, (2) the likelihood and impacts of these developments, and (3) policies to encourage positive developments or to deal with negative impacts. Lookout panels are often conducted in multiple, interactive rounds similar to a Delphi exercise. Bengston et al. (2012) discuss a lookout panel approach focusing on the future of wildland fire management that uses asynchronous computer conferences to gather panel members’ insights. Lookout panels can also be used to analyze and interpret scanning hits.
Internet Resources
The Internet has transformed horizon scanning practice in recent decades with an ever-expanding array of information resources. Here, two examples of Internet resources for scanning are highlighted. First, innovative blogs can be a good source for early discussion of emerging trends and cutting-edge ideas. Blog search engines such as Google Blogs (http://www.google.com/blogsearch) and Technorati.com allow the user to compile a watch list or create news alerts. The search engine automatically monitors keywords provided by the user and generates periodic email updates when relevant blog postings are found. An alternative blog search strategy is to compile a list of especially innovative and broad-ranging blogs and monitor them on a regular basis. Following blogs written by subject matter experts in key areas of interest can be an effective form of meta-scanning. The bloggers continuously scour the Internet for new developments related to the topic and often add interpretations about potential implications.
Another potential resource is Web-crawler or text mining software systems that scan the Internet automatically in search of emerging innovations and trends.1 Horizon scanning software automates a substantial part of the most labor-intensive and time-consuming aspect of
1 In addition to sophisticated Web-crawler or text mining software, simpler—and free—tools such as Google Alerts (http://www.google.com/alerts ) provide notifications of new information about relevant scanning topics as they appear on the Web.
9
Tab
le 1
.—E
xam
ple
s o
f m
eta-
scan
nin
g s
ou
rces
an
d a
dd
itio
nal
so
urc
es f
or
iden
tify
ing
tre
nd
s an
d d
rivi
ng
fo
rces
of
chan
gea
Org
aniz
atio
nD
escr
ipti
on
UR
Ls
for
rep
ort
s an
d a
rch
ives
AE
PI –
Arm
y E
nviro
nmen
tal P
olic
y In
stitu
te (
U.S
. Arm
y)
Con
duct
s or
spo
nsor
s m
onth
ly h
oriz
on s
cann
ing
on e
nviro
nmen
tal
issu
es w
ith d
iscu
ssio
n of
mili
tary
impl
icat
ions
. The
Mill
enni
um P
roje
ct
now
car
ries
out t
hese
hor
izon
sca
ns fo
r th
e A
EP
I, al
thou
gh th
e la
test
re
port
s ar
e fo
r Ju
ne 2
011.
http
://w
ww
.aep
i.arm
y.m
il/re
port
s/
http
://w
ww
.mill
enni
um-p
roje
ct.o
rg/m
illen
nium
/env
-sca
nnin
g.ht
ml
DE
FR
A –
Dep
artm
ent f
or
Env
ironm
ent,
Foo
d an
d R
ural
Affa
irs (
UK
)
Mon
thly
hor
izon
sca
nnin
g ne
wsl
ette
r. T
he D
EF
RA
mon
thly
hor
izon
sc
an is
now
con
duct
ed b
y th
e C
entr
e fo
r E
nviro
nmen
tal R
isks
and
F
utur
es (
CE
RF
), C
ranf
ield
Uni
vers
ity, U
K.
http
://ho
rizon
scan
ning
.def
ra.g
ov.u
k/
Fut
ure
Ten
se p
odca
sts
(Aus
tral
ian
Bro
adca
stin
g C
orpo
ratio
n)
Fut
ure
Ten
se is
a w
eekl
y ha
lf-ho
ur r
adio
bro
adca
st th
at e
xam
ines
so
cial
, cul
tura
l, an
d ec
onom
ic is
sues
aris
ing
from
rap
id c
hang
e.
Cov
ers
a w
ide
rang
e of
issu
es.
http
://w
ww
.abc
.net
.au/
radi
onat
iona
l/pro
gram
s/fu
ture
tens
e/
Fut
ure
Tre
nd R
epor
t (D
aVin
ci In
stitu
te)
Par
t of a
free
wee
kly
new
slet
ter
from
the
DaV
inci
Inst
itute
, a n
onpr
ofit
futu
res
thin
k ta
nk b
ased
in L
ouis
ville
, CO
.ht
tp://
ww
w.d
avin
ciin
stitu
te.c
om/n
ewsl
ette
r/
Fut
urew
atch
(Jo
urna
l of
Fut
ures
Stu
dies
)B
road
-ran
ging
hor
izon
sca
n th
at w
as in
clud
ed a
s th
e la
st it
em in
eac
h is
sue
of th
e “J
ourn
al o
f Fut
ures
Stu
dies”
until
Jun
e 20
11. T
his
jour
nal
is fr
eely
ava
ilabl
e on
line.
http
://w
ww
.jfs.
tku.
edu.
tw/s
artic
les.
htm
l
Glo
bal F
ores
ight
Boo
ksC
onta
ins
abst
ract
s of
mor
e th
an 5
,000
futu
res-
rele
vant
boo
ks a
nd
repo
rts
on a
ll as
pect
s of
cur
rent
affa
irs, p
lann
ing,
and
pub
lic p
olic
y. A
fr
ee e
mai
l new
slet
ter
prov
ides
a c
ompl
ete
list o
f new
pub
licat
ions
on
the
site
, the
Boo
k of
the
Mon
th, a
nd o
ther
info
rmat
ion.
The
dire
ctor
of
Glo
bal F
ores
ight
Boo
ks, f
utur
ist M
icha
el M
arie
n, e
dite
d F
utur
e S
urve
y fo
r 30
yea
rs.
http
://w
ww
.glo
balfo
resi
ghtb
ooks
.org
/
Glo
bal T
rend
s (N
atio
nal
Inte
llige
nce
Cou
ncil,
C
entr
al In
telli
genc
e A
genc
y)
Glo
bal T
rend
s 20
30 is
the
fifth
inst
allm
ent i
n th
e N
atio
nal I
ntel
ligen
ce
Cou
ncil-
led
effo
rt to
iden
tify
key
tren
ds a
nd d
river
s lik
ely
to s
hape
w
orld
eve
nts
a de
cade
or
mor
e in
the
futu
re. I
t use
s sc
enar
ios
to
illus
trat
e so
me
of th
e w
ays
in w
hich
the
driv
ers
may
inte
ract
to
gene
rate
cha
lleng
es a
nd o
ppor
tuni
ties
for
futu
re d
ecis
ionm
aker
s.
http
://w
ww
.dni
.gov
/inde
x.ph
p/ab
out/o
rgan
izat
ion/
natio
nal-
inte
llige
nce-
coun
cil-g
loba
l-tre
nds
Kur
zwei
l Acc
eler
atin
g In
telli
genc
e ne
wsl
ette
r (K
urzw
eilA
I Net
wor
k)
Dai
ly o
r w
eekl
y em
ail n
ewsl
ette
r th
at c
over
s sc
ienc
e an
d te
chno
logy
in
nova
tions
. Als
o lis
ts n
ew b
log
post
s, fe
atur
es, e
vent
s, v
ideo
s, a
nd
book
s.
http
://w
ww
.kur
zwei
lai.n
et/
Hum
an D
evel
opm
ent
Rep
ort (
UN
Dev
elop
men
t P
rogr
amm
e)
Ann
ual r
evie
w o
f hum
an d
evel
opm
ent t
rend
s an
d ch
alle
nges
, driv
ers
and
barr
iers
, and
mea
sure
men
t cha
lleng
es. P
rovi
des
new
ly a
vaila
ble
data
and
sup
plem
enta
ry in
dice
s w
eigh
ing
the
effe
ct o
f inc
ome
ineq
ualit
ies,
gen
der
disp
ariti
es, a
nd h
ouse
hold
-leve
l pov
erty
.
http
://hd
r.un
dp.o
rg/e
n/
U.N
. Dev
elop
men
t Pro
gram
me,
ed.
201
2. H
uman
Dev
elop
men
t R
epor
t 201
2. N
Y a
nd U
K: P
algr
ave
Mac
mill
an.
Out
look
, Fut
uris
t Upd
ate
(Wor
ld F
utur
e S
ocie
ty)
The
Out
look
ser
ies
is a
n an
nual
rou
ndup
of f
orec
asts
, tre
nds,
and
id
eas
draw
n fr
om a
rtic
les
and
new
s st
orie
s or
igin
ally
app
earin
g in
“T
he F
utur
ist”
mag
azin
e. T
he F
utur
ist U
pdat
e is
a fr
ee m
onth
ly e
mai
l ne
wsl
ette
r.
http
s://w
ww
.wfs
.org
/nod
e/56
7
cont
inue
d
10
Pew
Inte
rnet
& A
mer
ican
Li
fe P
roje
ct (
Pew
R
esea
rch
Cen
ter)
One
of s
even
pro
ject
s of
the
Pew
Res
earc
h C
ente
r, a
non
part
isan
, no
npro
fit th
ink
tank
that
exa
min
es is
sues
, atti
tude
s, a
nd tr
ends
sh
apin
g A
mer
ica
and
the
wor
ld. T
his
proj
ect h
as p
rodu
ced
man
y re
port
s on
the
impa
ct o
f the
Inte
rnet
on
fam
ilies
, com
mun
ities
, wor
k an
d ho
me,
dai
ly li
fe, e
duca
tion,
hea
lth c
are,
and
civ
ic a
nd p
oliti
cal l
ife.
http
://w
ww
.pew
inte
rnet
.org
/topi
cs/F
utur
e-of
-the
-Int
erne
t.asp
x
http
://w
ww
.imag
inin
gthe
Inte
rnet
.org
Pew
Soc
ial &
D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s P
roje
ct (
Pew
Res
earc
h C
ente
r)
Stu
dies
beh
avio
rs a
nd a
ttitu
des
of A
mer
ican
s in
key
are
as o
f the
ir liv
es, i
nclu
ding
fam
ily, c
omm
unity
, hea
lth, f
inan
ce, w
ork,
and
leis
ure.
T
hese
topi
cs a
re e
xam
ined
by
com
bini
ng o
rigin
al p
ublic
opi
nion
sur
vey
rese
arch
with
soc
ial,
econ
omic
, and
dem
ogra
phic
dat
a an
alys
is.
http
://w
ww
.pew
soci
altr
ends
.org
/
http
://pe
wre
sear
ch.o
rg/to
pics
/soc
ialtr
ends
/
Sci
ence
Dai
lyA
n aw
ard-
win
ning
Web
site
that
cov
ers
brea
king
new
s ab
out t
he la
test
sc
ient
ific
disc
over
ies
in a
use
r-fr
iend
ly fo
rmat
. The
site
cov
ers
all f
ield
s of
the
phys
ical
, bio
logi
cal,
eart
h, a
nd a
pplie
d sc
ienc
es. S
torie
s ar
e lin
ked
to th
e or
igin
al a
rtic
les.
Use
rs c
an s
earc
h th
e si
te’s
arc
hive
s of
st
orie
s, to
pics
, art
icle
s, v
ideo
s, im
ages
, and
boo
ks.
http
://w
ww
.sci
ence
daily
.com
/
Sha
ping
Tom
orro
w
New
slet
ter
(Sha
ping
T
omor
row
)
A fr
ee w
eekl
y ne
wsl
ette
r. S
hapi
ng T
omor
row
is a
com
mer
cial
ser
vice
th
at s
cans
and
ana
lyze
s tr
ends
usi
ng a
wor
ldw
ide
team
. Clie
nts
can
follo
w 7
5 tr
end
topi
cs o
r se
arch
for
spec
ific
inte
rest
s. M
any
cust
om
serv
ices
are
offe
red
rela
ted
to fo
resi
ght,
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng, a
nd
chan
ge m
anag
emen
t.
http
://w
ww
.sha
ping
tom
orro
w.c
om
Sta
te o
f the
Fut
ure
(Mill
enni
um P
roje
ct)
Ann
ual r
epor
t pro
vidi
ng a
n ov
ervi
ew o
f the
glo
bal s
ituat
ion
and
pros
pect
s fo
r th
e fu
ture
. It i
nclu
des
an e
xecu
tive
sum
mar
y an
d 2-
page
ov
ervi
ews
with
reg
iona
l con
side
ratio
ns o
f 15
glob
al c
halle
nges
suc
h as
en
ergy
, foo
d, s
cien
ce a
nd te
chno
logy
, eth
ics,
dev
elop
men
t, w
ater
, and
de
mog
raph
ics.
http
://w
ww
.mill
enni
um-p
roje
ct.o
rg/m
illen
nium
/201
2SO
F.h
tml
Sta
te o
f the
Wor
ld
(Wor
ldw
atch
Inst
itute
)T
he W
orld
wat
ch In
stitu
te’s
ann
ual s
erie
s on
crit
ical
glo
bal i
ssue
s an
d dr
ivin
g fo
rces
. Top
ics
are
cove
red
from
a g
loba
l per
spec
tive,
with
an
emph
asis
on
how
to c
reat
e a
mor
e su
stai
nabl
e an
d eq
uita
ble
futu
re.
http
://w
ww
.wor
ldw
atch
.org
/sta
teof
thew
orld
2012
Vita
l Sig
ns, V
ital S
igns
O
nlin
e (W
orld
wat
ch
Inst
itute
)
Ann
ual r
epor
t tra
ckin
g 24
key
tren
ds in
the
envi
ronm
ent,
agric
ultu
re,
ener
gy, s
ocie
ty, a
nd th
e ec
onom
y. V
ital S
igns
Onl
ine
is a
n in
tera
ctiv
e,
subs
crip
tion-
base
d to
ol tr
acki
ng s
usta
inab
ility
tren
ds.
http
://w
ww
.wor
ldw
atch
.org
/vita
lsig
ns20
12
http
://vi
tals
igns
.wor
ldw
atch
.org
/
Wor
ld M
igra
tion
Rep
ort (
Inte
rnat
iona
l O
rgan
izat
ion
for
Mig
ratio
n)
Ann
ual r
epor
t cov
erin
g in
tern
atio
nal m
igra
tion
tren
ds. E
ach
year
’s
repo
rt h
as a
diff
eren
t the
me.
The
them
e of
the
2010
rep
ort w
as “
The
F
utur
e of
Mig
ratio
n: B
uild
ing
Cap
aciti
es fo
r C
hang
e.”
http
://pu
blic
atio
ns.io
m.in
t/boo
ksto
re/in
dex.
php?
mai
n_pa
ge=
inde
x&cP
ath=
37
Wor
ld V
alue
s S
urve
yT
he W
orld
Val
ues
Sur
vey
(WV
S)
netw
ork
(“T
he w
orld
’s m
ost
com
preh
ensi
ve in
vest
igat
ion
of p
oliti
cal a
nd s
ocio
cultu
ral c
hang
e”)
prov
ides
a 3
0-ye
ar ti
me
serie
s fo
r th
e an
alys
is o
f soc
ial a
nd p
oliti
cal
chan
ge. T
he W
VS
net
wor
k ca
rrie
d ou
t a n
ew w
ave
of s
urve
ys in
201
0 -
2012
cov
erin
g m
ore
than
50
coun
trie
s. D
ata
from
all
prev
ious
wav
es
are
avai
labl
e fr
om th
e W
VS
Web
site
.
http
://w
ww
.wor
ldva
lues
surv
ey.o
rg
a Sev
eral
of t
he m
eta-
scan
res
ourc
es li
sted
in T
able
1 a
re n
o lo
nger
pro
duce
d, b
ut a
re in
clud
ed b
ecau
se th
e ar
chiv
es o
f pas
t sca
ns p
rovi
de e
xem
plar
s of
sca
nnin
g ou
tput
.
Org
aniz
atio
nD
escr
ipti
on
UR
Ls
for
rep
ort
s an
d a
rch
ives
Tab
le 1
.—co
nti
nu
ed
11
scanning, allowing more time for scanners to analyze, synthesize, and interpret scanning hits. Decker et al. (2005) describe a conceptual framework for a Web-based horizon scanning process based on information foraging theory, and demonstrate the advantages of this approach in a human-machine experiment in which a prototype system outperformed a group of human experts in a typical scanning task. The Singapore government’s Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning program uses Web-crawler software to increase the efficiency of its scanning (Conference Board of Canada 2008). New developments in text mining are able to distill large volumes of text found on the Internet into highly readable summaries (e.g., Mithun 2012) or classify text into key driving forces of change (e.g., Halliman 2009). Most automated scanning software is proprietary and expensive today but offers a promising tool for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of horizon scanning. Though a useful scanning resource, software systems and the Internet should not be relied upon as the sole means of identifying signals of change (Douw et al. 2003).
Wide-angle Vision
It is easy to get lost in detailed reading and close examination of a large number of sources and vast amounts of information, resulting in missed signals of change (Coote 2012). To avoid becoming overwhelmed and to scan more effectively, professional horizon scanners sometimes practice a technique similar to the “wide-angle vision” or “splatter vision” approach used by U.S. Secret Service agents and others (Burkan 1996, Day and Schoemaker 2004). The essence of this technique in a security context is to take in the entire scene without focusing on anyone in particular. Holding this wide-angle gaze, the agent looks for anomalies that do not fit with the rest of the scene, e.g., someone who is looking around too much or appears restless, whose clothing is not appropriate for the weather, or whose demeanor does not fit with the cheering or expectant faces in the crowd. Suspicious activity triggers closer scrutiny. An analogous wide-angle vision process can be applied to horizon scanning, in which scanners view massive amounts of information in search of incongruities that may signal future change. As in security scanning, the idea is to take in everything as a whole and not focus too much on a
specific area or expected future. Focusing on one area can lead to blindness because “change usually hits us where we least expect it” (Burkan 1998: 37).
Wild Cards
Potential changes in the external environment identified by horizon scanning can be either continuous or discontinuous. The most disruptive type of discontinuous change is low-probability but high-impact events, referred to in the futures literature as wild cards (Petersen and Steinmueller 2009), black swans (Taleb 2010), or STEEP surprises (Markley 2011). In the resilience literature, discontinuous and largely unpredictable change is called “back loop” change or surprise (Walker and Salt 2006). Wild cards are often neglected in scanning in favor of more tractable continuous changes. Given the potential importance of wildcards, however, horizon scanning systems should explicitly consider identifying and exploring them.
Potential wild cards are extremely difficult to identify and interpret, but several methods have been proposed. For example, Petersen (1997) maintains that there are always early warnings of impending wild card events, but we frequently miss them because we tend not to think about such events and the precursors that might signal their approach. By identifying potential positive and negative wild cards in advance through extensive and regular brainstorming, early indicators can be identified and monitored, and plans to deal with their impacts can be developed. Petersen identifies and briefly analyzes 78 potential wild cards, including rapid climate change, a major breakthrough in nanotechnology, the development of self-aware machine intelligence, and a worldwide pandemic. Other approaches to wild card scanning often involve categorizing potential wild card events to make them easier to spot on the horizon. For example, Markley (2011) described a four-level typology of wild cards and a related method for monitoring emerging awareness of them and their credibility, and Mendonça et al. (2004) proposed a method based on the type of wild card, the subject area affected (e.g., economic, environmental, technological), and the nature and magnitude of potential impacts.
12
TECHNIQUES FOR ANALYZING, SYNTHESIZING, AND INTERPRETING
The weak signals identified by horizon scanning will be of little use if they are left unanalyzed. Busy planners, managers, and policy makers do not have the time or inclination to sort through and interpret large amounts of unprocessed information. This section surveys some techniques that can be used to analyze important individual trends and issues, as well as “connecting the dots” by synthesizing related scanning hits and looking for big-picture implications.
Nominal Group Technique
The nominal group technique (NGT) is a widely used structured group discussion and decisionmaking process. The “nominal” in NGT refers to the fact that participants work alone for the most part, so it involves a group in name only. One of the main advantages of NGT is that it avoids problems caused by dominant personalities in group interactions and decisionmaking. Originally developed by Delbecq and Van de Ven (1971), NGT can be used with groups of many sizes to quickly make decisions with everyone’s opinions being taken into account. Although there are many variations, the standard procedure for NGT entails five stages (Potter et al. 2004, Tague 2005). First, a facilitator explains the purpose and procedure to participants. In the context of horizon scanning, the purpose might be to rank or rate the importance or likelihood of trends and issues identified by scanning. Second, participants individually generate ideas related to the purpose (e.g., ratings of the most important trends) without discussing their ideas with others. Third, participants each share their ideas, which are recorded by the facilitator. All participants should have an equal opportunity to contribute. Fourth is group discussion, in which participants can seek explanations or details about any of the ideas that have been put forward and new or hybrid ideas that arise from the discussion may be added. The final step is voting and ranking the ideas in relation to the original question, which produces the specific outcome of the process.
Sutherland et al. (2011) used a form of NGT combined with a lookout panel to both identify and rank the importance of issues related to conserving biodiversity.
The purpose of this scanning exercise, which built on an earlier effort (Sutherland et al. 2010), was to identify emerging “technological advances, environmental changes, novel ecological interactions and changes in society that could have substantial impacts on the conservation of biological diversity” (Sutherland et al. 2011: 11). The 25 participants included specialists in various fields of conservation science as well as professional horizon scanners. Participants each identified and summarized up to four emerging issues they deemed to be most relevant. Seventy-one issues were identified and distributed to all contributors for scoring on a scale from 1 (well-known and relatively unimportant) to 10 (poorly known but potentially important). The issues with the highest mean scores were retained and assessed at a face-to-face workshop. After critical assessment and discussion, participants individually ranked the relative importance of the issues on a scale of 0 to 100. The result was a prioritized list of often unrecognized issues with potential importance for global conservation.
Impact/Likelihood Assessment
This technique is a simple way to identify which issues or trends may be of greatest importance to decisionmakers (Renfro and Morrison 1983). Given a long list of emerging issues identified by horizon scanning, impact/likelihood assessment begins with a subjective rating of the likelihood of each issue affecting the organization. A simple high, medium, or low scale may be used or a numerical scale ranging from 1 (low likelihood) to 10 (high likelihood). The potential impact of each issue on various areas of concern, such as environmental, economic, and social impacts, is also subjectively rated (e.g., low impact = 1, high impact = 3). The ratings can then be plotted on a graph with potential impact on one axis and probability or likelihood of occurrence on the other, creating an easy-to-grasp visual display of issues that are high in both impact and likelihood, as shown in Figure 3. A variation of this technique is used in CERF’s scanning reports, which combine impact and likelihood ratings to determine “importance” and plot this value against the expected timing of a development (CERF 2012). Another variation is the EPA’s (2005) system of rating the importance of scanning hits on a 5-point scale for seven criteria (novelty, scope, severity, visibility, timing, probability, and organizational relevance).
13
Futures Wheel
The direct or first-order impacts of trends and issues identified by horizon scanning may be fairly easy to discern. But the higher-order consequences are typically less obvious, often contain surprises, and may be the most important. The futures wheel, also called the Implications Wheel® or impact network, is a simple and practical tool that uses the “wisdom of crowds” (Surowiecki 2004) to explore the direct and indirect consequences of a trend, innovation, policy, or any change (Glenn 2009). The basic idea is that every change or potential change has consequences and these consequences have consequences. The futures wheel helps planners, managers, and other stakeholders identify and think through these multiple levels of consequences. Figure 4 shows the typical structure of a futures wheel.
The process of constructing a futures wheel begins by placing a short-hand description of a change or trend in
the center. For example, the trend “growing hydraulic fracturing activity on private lands near national forests” could be expressed simply as “increased fracking.” Next, the possible direct first-order impacts of increased fracking are identified by brainstorming and branch out from the center. Possible first-order consequences of fracking would likely include increased truck traffic, water consumption, creation of local jobs, and possible groundwater contamination. An impact categorization system such as STEEP (Morrison 1992) can be used to help identify all the first-order consequences in the near future. It is important to identify both positive and negative consequences. Next, the possible second-order consequences of each of the first-order consequences are identified by brainstorming and are added to the futures wheel. For example, increased truck traffic may result in impacts such as damage to rural roads not designed for such high levels of traffic, increased noise levels from 24-hour traffic, and safety concerns. Each of these impacts
3
Figure 3.—Impact /Probability figure summarizing ratings for two hypothetical issues. Issue 1 (indicated by circles) shows an event with a consensus rating on probability of occurrence (high) and a consensus on moderately positive impact. Issue 2 (indicated by triangles) shows an event with a consensus on probability of occurrence (low) but not on impact. (Source: Adapted from Renfro and Morrison 1983: 16).
14
may have third-order consequences. Once all levels of the futures wheel have been completed – typically not beyond third-order consequences – a comprehensive picture of the possible direct and indirect, positive and negative consequences emerges. Some approaches to the futures wheel include rating the desirability/undesirability and likelihood of occurrence of each implication, and comparing the ratings of different stakeholder groups. The final step is to develop strategies to manage the possible negative consequences and take advantage of or encourage the positive consequences. The construction of futures wheels and analysis of the implications identified can be greatly facilitated with computer support, such as the software developed for futurist Joel Barker’s Implications Wheel® (Barker 2011).
Cross-impact Matrix
Various forms of cross-impact analysis have been used to examine how multiple trends or events might impact each other (Heuer and Pherson 2011). The many approaches to this technique are based on the premise that events do not occur in a vacuum and other forces in the surrounding environment can significantly impact them or affect their likelihood of occurrence. Chao (2008: 45) notes that the usefulness of the “cross-impact method lies in its systematic analysis of interactions among possible future developments.” Some approaches to cross-impact analysis are complex, time-consuming, and expensive to implement, but a simple version of the cross-impact matrix can be useful to examine the possible interactions among selected broad trends or driving
4
Figure 4.—Typical structure of a futures wheel.
15
forces identified through horizon scanning (Wagschall 1983). Table 2 depicts a hypothetical 6 by 6 cross-impact matrix. The same set of trends is listed across the top and on the left side of the matrix. Each cell is filled with an estimation of the positive or negative impact the trend on the left would have on each of the trends across the top. The combined judgment of a group can be used to fill in the cells by using pluses and minuses (i.e., + + = strong positive impact, + = positive impact, 0 = no impact or disagreement, - = negative impact, - - = strong negative impact). In Table 2, for example, the “+ +” in the second cell of the first row indicates a consensus judgment that trend 1 will have a strongly positive impact on trend 2. In some cases, the matrix can also be filled in based on what the research literature reveals about past relationships between similar trends. When all the cells have been filled in, the columns and rows can be aggregated to produce insights about the interactions. For example, trend 1 produces the strongest positive impact on the other trends, and trend 5 produces the greatest negative change.
Scenarios
Finally, a productive way to analyze and interpret emerging trends and developments identified by horizon scanning is to use them to create scenarios that illustrate a range of alternative plausible futures. The set of most likely and most important trends identified by the preceding techniques constitutes driving forces of change that can be used as key building blocks in scenario analysis. Glenn and the Futures Group International (2009: 2) define a scenario as “a story with plausible cause and effect links that connects a future condition with the present, while illustrating key decisions, events, and consequences throughout the narrative.” The output of a scenario analysis is a set of stories or narratives. The stories
are not predictions but represent a range of plausible futures intended to help decisionmakers and stakeholders build adaptive capacity to make their systems more resilient to change by preparing for a diverse set of alternatives. Dozens of scenario development methods have been created, including qualitative and quantitative approaches, expert-based and participatory approaches involving stakeholders, and inquiry-driven and strategy-driven scenario analysis (Alcamo 2008, Bishop et al. 2007). Regardless of the scenario development method used, driving forces of change identified by horizon scanning are a key input and scenarios can be a powerful technique to help decisionmakers explore and prepare for a range of plausible futures.
CONCLUSIONS
Futurist Peter Bishop (2009: 12) succinctly observed that “scanning is hard, but also necessary.” It is hard for many reasons. Bringing diverse stakeholders together in participatory scanning is challenging. Identifying weak signals of change in a complex, turbulent environment is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Separating meaningful signals from all the noise requires the rare ability to see beyond prevailing mindsets and paradigms. Analyzing and correctly interpreting potential signals of change calls for creativity and insight. Acting on possible opportunities and threats presented by incipient change demands visionary leadership and careful strategy. Successfully achieving all of these requirements is indeed difficult. Some horizon scanning projects and systems fail to meet expectations or achieve goals, for a variety of reasons such as insufficient budget, lack of management support, and weak stakeholder participation (Lesca and Caron-Fasan 2008).
Table 2.—Hypothetical cross-impact matrix. (Source: Adapted from Wagschall 1983)
Trend 1 Trend 2 Trend 3 Trend 4 Trend 5 Trend 6 Sum of impacts
Trend 1 x + + 0 + + + 0 5 +
Trend 2 - - x 0 + + + + 2 +
Trend 3 0 + x 0 + + 3 +
Trend 4 - - - 0 x - - 5 -
Trend 5 - - - 0 - - x - 6 -
Trend 6 0 0 - 0 0 x 1 -
Sum of impacts 5 - 0 1 - 1 + 2 + 1 +
16
Despite these challenges, horizon scanning is necessary. The rapid pace of change, increasing complexity, and frequency of surprise necessitate preparing for an uncertain future by promoting a forward view throughout an organization, stimulating people to think about how emerging trends could affect their work and the mission of their agency, and preparing contingency plans. A well-designed, organizationally appropriate horizon scanning system with long-term support is needed to accomplish these objectives. Business research has repeatedly demonstrated that effective horizon scanning improves organizational performance (Choo 2002). Scanning can enhance discussion about future-oriented issues within an organization, as well as help decisionmakers anticipate and quickly respond to external change. A formal horizon scanning system is a vital but often missing component in the strategic planning process of public natural resource and environmental organizations.
ACkNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Leif DeVaney, Michael Dockry, Robert Olson, and Lynne Westphal for many helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
LITERATURE CITED
Alcamo, J., ed. 2008. Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. 197 p.
Barker, J.A. 1992. Paradigms: the business of discovering the future. New York: HarperBusiness. 240 p.
Barker, J.A. 2011. The Implications Wheel®. Available at http://implicationswheel.com/. (Accessed April 23, 2013).
Bengston, D.N.; Olson, R.L.; DeVaney, L.A. 2012. The future of wildland fire management in a world of rapid change and great uncertainty: overview of a futures research project. In: Fox, R.L., ed. Proceedings of 3rd human dimensions of wildland fire conference, 17-19 April 2012, Seattle, WA. Missoula, MT: International Association of Wildland Fire: 34-40. Available at http://www.iawfonline.
org/pdf/3rd%20Human%20Dimensions%20Conference%20Proceedings%20-%20FINAL.pdf . (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Bishop, P. 2009. Horizon scanning: Why is it so hard? Houston, TX: University of Houston. Available at http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Emerging%20Tech%202011/Horizon%20Scanning.pdf. (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Bishop, P.; Hines, A.; Collins, T. 2007. The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight. 9(1): 5-25.
Brown, D. 2007. Horizon scanning and the business environment: the implications for risk management. BT Technology Journal. 25(1): 214-218.
Burkan, W. 1996. Wide-angle vision: Beat your competition by focusing on fringe competitors, lost customers, and rogue employees. New York: John Wiley. 275 p.
Burkan, W. 1998. Developing your wide-angle vision. The Futurist. 32(2): 35-38.
Centre for Environmental Risks and Futures (CERF). 2012. Horizon scan newsletter. Bedfordshire, UK: Cranfield University. Available at http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/sas/cerf/horizonscanning.html. (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Chao, K. 2008. A new look at the cross-impact matrix and its application in futures studies. Journal of Futures Studies. 12(4): 45-52.
Choo, C.W. 1999. The art of scanning the environment. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 25(3): 21-24.
Choo, C.W. 2002. Information management for the intelligent organization: the art of scanning the environment. 3rd ed. Published for the American Society for Information Science. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. 325 p.
17
Choudhury, V.; Sampler, J.L. 1997. Information specificity and environmental scanning. MIS Quarterly. 21(1): 25-54.
Conference Board of Canada. 2008. Horizon scanning: gathering research evidence to inform decision making. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada. April. Available at http://blogs.usask.ca/SHORE/08-158%20Horizon%20Scanning.pdf . (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Coote, J. 2012. A simple guide to futurewatching. Journal of Futures Studies. 16(3): 107-112.
Cornish, E. 2004. Futuring: the exploration of the future. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society. 313 p.
Day, G.S.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. 2004. Driving through the fog: managing at the edge. Long Range Planning (Special issue on: Peripheral vision: sensing and acting on weak signals). 37(2): 127-142.
Day, G.S.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. 2005. Scanning the periphery. Harvard Business Review. 83(11): 135-148.
Day, G.S.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. 2006. Peripheral vision: detecting the weak signals that will make or break your company. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. 248 p.
Decker, R.; Wagner, R.; Scholz. S.W. 2005. An Internet-based approach to environmental scanning in marketing planning. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 23(2): 189-199.
Delbecq, A.; Van de Ven, A.H. 1971. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7(4): 466-492.
Douw, K.; Vondeling, H. 2006. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: a survey among horizon scanning systems. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 22(2): 177-183.
Douw, K.; Vondeling, H.; Eskildsen, D.; Simpson, S. 2003. Use of the Internet in scanning the horizon for new and emerging health technologies: a survey of agencies involved in horizon scanning. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 5(1): e6. Available at http://www.jmir.org/2003/1/e6/ . (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Environmental Futures Committee. 1995. Futures methods and issues: a technical annex to “Beyond the horizon: protecting the future with foresight.” EPA-SAB-EC-95-007A. Washington, DC: Science Advisory Board, US Environmental Protection Agency.
Ghoshal, S.; Westney, D.E. 1991. Organizing competitor analysis systems. Strategic Management Journal. 12(1): 17-31.
Glenn, J.C. 2009. Futures wheel. In: Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J., eds. Futures research methodology—version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.
Glenn, J.C.; the Futures Group International. 2009. Scenarios. In: Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J., eds. Futures research methodology—version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.
Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J.; Florescu, E., eds. 2012. 2012 state of the future [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.
Gordon, T.J.; Glenn, J.C. 2009. Environmental scanning. In: Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J., eds. Futures research methodology—version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.
Halliman, C. 2009. Business intelligence using smart techniques: environmental scanning using text mining and competitor analysis using scenarios and manual simulation. Rev. ed. Houston, TX: Information Uncover. 230 p.
Harris, J. 2002. Blindsided: how to spot the next breakthrough that will change your business. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 320 p.
18
Heuer, R.J.; Pherson, R.H. 2011. Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 343 p.
Hiltunen, E. 2008. Good sources of weak signals: a global study of where futurists look for weak signals. Journal of Futures Studies. 12(4): 21-44.
Hines, A. 2003. Applying integral futures to environmental scanning. Futures Research Quarterly. 19(4): 49-62.
Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. 2008. Marketing management. 13th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 816 p.
Lesca, N.; Caron-Fasan, M.L. 2008. Strategic scanning project failure and abandonment factors: lessons learned. European Journal of Information Systems. 17(Aug.): 371-386.
Markley,O. 2011. A new methodology for anticipating STEEP surprises. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 78(6): 1079-1097.
Mendonça, S.; Cunha, M.P.; Kaivo-oja, J.; Ruff, F. 2004. Wild cards, weak signals and organisational improvisation. Futures. 36(2): 201-218.
Mithun, S. 2012. Exploiting rhetorical relations in blog summarization. Montreal, QC: Concordia University. 230 p. Ph.D. dissertation. Available at http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~kosseim/Thesis/thesisShamima.pdf. (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Morrison, J.L. 1992. Environmental scanning. In: Whitely, M.A.; Porter, J.D.; Fenske, R.H., eds. A primer for new institutional researchers. Tallahassee, FL: The Association for Institutional Research: 86-99. Available at http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/enviroscan/default.html. (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Morrison, J.; Wilson, I. 1997. Analyzing environments and developing scenarios in uncertain times. In: Peterson, M.W.; Dill, D.D.; Mets, L.A., eds., Planning and management for a changing environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Available at http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/JBChapter.asp. (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Munck, R.; McConnell, G. 2009. University strategic planning and the foresight/futures approach: an Irish case study. Planning for Higher Education. 38(1): 31-40.
Nanus, B. 1982. QUEST – quick environmental scanning technique. Long Range Planning. 15(2): 39-45.
National Intelligence Council. 2012. Global trends 2030: alternative worlds. NIC 2012-001. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency. 137 p. URL: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/national-intelligence-council-global-trends (Accessed May 1, 2013).
Nickerson, R.S. 1998. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology. 2(2): 175-220.
Page, S.E. 2007. The difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 448 p.
Petersen, J.L. 1997. Out of the blue: wild cards and other big future surprises—how to anticipate and respond to profound change. Arlington, VA: The Arlington Institute. 189 p.
Petersen, J.; Steinmueller, K. 2009. Wild cards. In: Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J., eds. Futures research methodology—version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.
Pflaum, A.M.; Delmont, T.J. 1987. External scanning—a tool for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association. 53(1): 58-68.
Potter, M.; Gordon, S.; Hamer, P. 2004. The nominal group technique: a useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy. 32(3): 126-130.
19
Renfro, W.L.; Morrison, J.L. 1983. The scanning process: getting started. In: Morrison, J.L.; Renfro, W.L.; Boucher, W.I., eds. Applying methods and techniques of futures research. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 39. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 5-20.
Schwartz, P. 1996. The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Currency Doubleday. 272 p.
Slaughter, R.A. 1990. Assessing the QUEST for future knowledge: significance of the quick environmental scanning technique for futures. Futures. 22(2): 153-166.
Slaughter, R.A. 1999a. A new framework for environmental scanning. Foresight. 1(5): 441-451.
Slaughter, R.A. 1999b. Futures for the third millennium: enabling the forward view. Sydney, Australia: Prospect Media. 366 p.
Surowiecki, J. 2004. The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: Doubleday. 320 p.
Sutherland, W. J.; Bailey, M.J.; Bainbridge, I.P. [et al.]. 2008. Future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by horizon scanning. Journal of Applied Ecology. 45(3): 821-833.
Sutherland, W.J.; Woodroof, H.J. 2009. The need for environmental horizon scanning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24(10): 523-527.
Sutherland, W.J.; Clout, M.; Côté, I.M. [et al.]. 2010. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 25(1):1-7.
Sutherland, W.J.; Bardsley, S.; Bennun, L. [et al.]. 2011. Horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2011. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 26(1): 10-16.
Sutter, P.S. 2002. Driven wild: how the fight against automobiles launched the modern wilderness movement. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 343 p.
Tague, N.R. 2005. The quality toolbox. 2nd ed. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press. 558 p.
Taleb, N.N. 2010. The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. 2nd ed. New York: Random House. 480 p.
United Nations Environment Programme. 2012. 21 issues for the 21st century: results of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. Nairobi, Kenya. 56 p. http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/foresightreport/ (Accessed April 22, 2013).
United Way of America. 1992. What lies ahead: a decade of decision. United Way of America, Strategic Planning Division. Alexandria, VA: United Way Strategic Institute. 105 p.
U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute. [N.d.]. Homepage. Available at http://www.aepi.army.mil/. (Accessed April 22, 2013).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. The environmental future: emerging challenges and opportunities for EPA. Report from the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). EPA 100-R-02-001. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Shaping our environmental future: foresight in the Office of Research and Development. EPA 600/R-06/150. Washington, DC.
U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 68. April 9. Rules and regulations. Available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362538.pdf . (Accessed May 1, 2013).
20
Voros, J. 2001. Reframing environmental scanning: an integral approach. Foresight. 3(6): 533-551.
Wagschall, P.H. 1983. Judgmental forecasting techniques and institutional planning: an example. In: Morrison, J.L.; Renfro, W.L.; Boucher, W.I., eds. Applying methods and techniques of futures research. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 39. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 39-49.
Walker, B.; Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press. 174 p.
Weiner, E.; Brown, A. 2005. FutureThink: how to think clearly in a time of change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 286 p.
Yasai-Ardekani, M.; Nystrom, P.C. 1996. Designs for environmental scanning systems: tests of a contingency theory. Management Science. 42(2): 187-204.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Bengston, David N. 2013. Horizon scanning for environmental foresight: a review of issues and approaches. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-121. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 20 p.
Natural resource management organizations carry out a range of activities to examine possible future conditions and trends as part of their planning process, but the distinct approach of formal horizon scanning is often a missing component of strategic thinking and strategy development in these organizations. Horizon scanning is a process for finding and interpreting early indications of change in the external environment of an organization or field. Effective horizon scanning serves as an early warning system to identify potential opportunities and threats, enable decisionmakers to plan accordingly and take timely action, and foster a culture of foresight throughout an organization. This paper reviews and discusses the key items needed to create an effective horizon scanning system: conceptual frameworks, organizational approaches, design principles, techniques to improve effectiveness, and techniques for analyzing and interpreting scanning results.
KEY WORDS: horizon scanning, environmental scanning, strategic foresight, futures research
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Northern Research Station
www.nrs.fs.fed.us